Another way to look at it . . . .

[Greg Cox]

Suppose this new movie wasn't STAR TREK at all. Suppose it was a brand-new revisionist take on DRACULA starring Zachary Quinto as the Count, Chris Pine as Jonathan Harker, and Karl Urban as "Bones" Van Helsing.

Would this constitute "a slap in the face" to everyone who grew up on Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi?

Would fans lament that the "canon" of the old Hammer horror flicks had been violated?

Would this be an insult to the "vision" of Bram Stoker?

Would people declare that "DRACULA is dead"?

Of course not. Because DRACULA long ago entered into the pantheon of classic characters and stories that get rebooted and reinterpreted for each new generation. And isn't it great that STAR TREK might be heading in that direction?

Who knows? Maybe in 2050 there'll be yet another reboot, with a brand-new cast playing Kirk, Spock, etcetera.

I'd like to think so.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But, but - vampires aren't real. Star Trek is.

 

[Dar70]

Suppose this new movie wasn't STAR TREK at all. Suppose it was a brand-new revisionist take on DRACULA starring Zachary Quinto as the Count, Chris Pine as Jonathan Harker, and Karl Urban as "Bones" Van Helsing.

Would this constitute "a slap in the face" to everyone who grew up on Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi?

Would fans lament that the "canon" of the old Hammer horror flicks had been violated?

Would this be an insult to the "vision" of Bram Stoker?

Would people declare that "DRACULA is dead"?

Of course not. Because DRACULA long ago entered into the pantheon of classic characters and stories that get rebooted and reinterpreted for each new generation. And isn't it great that STAR TREK might be heading in that direction?

Who knows? Maybe in 2050 there'll be yet another reboot, with a brand-new cast playing Kirk, Spock, etcetera.

I'd like to think so.

I would have gone for something like that. A complete reboot. Not a semi reboot. They opened a whole new can of worms by doing it the way they did. We now have multiple threads on timeline theory, canon violation etc. In there attempt to throw all the baggage out from the previous series and movies they decided to keep the Spock baggage from the previous canon. Thereby including all the old baggage but its just in a closet on the other side of the timeline and confuse the hell out of everyone. Why not just start all over. I wanted to see "seek out new life and new civilizations, explore strange new worlds" Not the same old stuff we have been subjected to the last 3 or 10 films.

 

[Trekwatcher]

In all fairness, a lot more people in 2009 care about Star Trek stories than they do about Dracula stories. And, to be honest, I suspect some Dracula fans would be pretty darn upset. "Who is JJ Abrams," they would say, "to rewrite the words of Bram Stoker!"

 

[ireactions]

> they decided to keep the Spock baggage from the
> previous canon. Thereby including all the old baggage
> but its just in a closet on the other side of the timeline
> and confuse the hell out of everyone.

You don't speak for everyone. If you're confused, then you're confused, but don't you presume to speak for me.

Some of the saddest posts on this board are from a few sci-fi obsessives who presume that, due to their fixation on a fictional universe, they speak for everyone when offering their opinion of it.

> "Who is JJ Abrams," they would say, "to rewrite the
> words of Bram Stoker!"

Yes, but 'they' would simply be people who would be predisposed to dislike any film adaptation of "Dracula" in the first place, and it's always a non-starter to discuss pleasing people who've decided in advance not to be pleased.

- Ibrahim Ng

 

[CorporalClegg]

That's not a fair comparison.

If you're talking about remaking a story about an undead noble who goes around seducing women then killing them, I don't think anyone would complain.

If instead they turn Vlad the Impaler into a happy, peaceful flower child I think people would have a problem.

That's sort of what happend here.

 

[Captain_Rogers]

That's not a fair comparison.

If you're talking about remaking a story about an undead noble who goes around seducing women then killing them, I don't think anyone would complain.

If instead they turn Vlad the Impaler into a happy, peaceful flower child I think people would have a problem.

That's sort of what happend here.

I must have seen a different movie than you did. This one sure looked and sounded like Star Trek to me.

 

[Greg Cox]

That's not a fair comparison.

If you're talking about remaking a story about an undead noble who goes around seducing women then killing them, I don't think anyone would complain.

If instead they turn Vlad the Impaler into a happy, peaceful flower child I think people would have a problem.

That's sort of what happend here.

I must have seen a different movie than you did. This one sure looked and sounded like Star Trek to me.

Ditto. I mean, Kirk still ends up Captain of the Enterprise. He uses "creative thinking" to outwit the Kobyashi Maru. Spock is half-human, half-Vulcan and struggling with his dual nature and Vulcan teachings. McCoy is a doctor, not a physicist, damnit. Uhura is a communications whiz. Scotty is a miracle worker. Old Spock is and always will be Kirk's friend . . . .

That's not exactly turning Dracula into a hippie. IMHO.

 

[El Chupacabra]

Suppose this new movie wasn't STAR TREK at all. Suppose it was a brand-new revisionist take on DRACULA starring Zachary Quinto as the Count, Chris Pine as Jonathan Harker, and Karl Urban as "Bones" Van Helsing.

Would this constitute "a slap in the face" to everyone who grew up on Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi?

Would fans lament that the "canon" of the old Hammer horror flicks had been violated?

Would this be an insult to the "vision" of Bram Stoker?

Would people declare that "DRACULA is dead"?

Of course not. Because DRACULA long ago entered into the pantheon of classic characters and stories that get rebooted and reinterpreted for each new generation. And isn't it great that STAR TREK might be heading in that direction?

Who knows? Maybe in 2050 there'll be yet another reboot, with a brand-new cast playing Kirk, Spock, etcetera.

I'd like to think so.

Dracula was one book (yes a book). Star Trek is how many hundreds of hours of films, tv and cartoons (not to mention the spin off books and things)? It's not comparable. There was no detailed universe established in Dracula. It was one story based on a urban legend. There simply isn't anything in hollywood as detailed and established are the prime timeline was in Star Trek. I can't accept the comparison.

 

[Greg Cox]

Okay, what about Sherlock Holmes? Holmes fans practically invented the word "canon" as Trekkies like to use it. Did the SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION violate the canon as established by Conan Doyle? Sure. Does it matter? No.

Great stories and characters can support multiple interpretations.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

But, but - vampires aren't real. Star Trek is.

I'm afraid to admit that some people do seem to think so.

 

[Trekwatcher]

Okay, what about Sherlock Holmes? Holmes fans practically invented the word "canon" as Trekkies like to use it. Did the SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION violate the canon as established by Conan Doyle? Sure. Does it matter? No.

Great stories and characters can support multiple interpretations.

Not fair. You are changing your argument. Dracula and Holmes are very different, and I *guarantee* you that many Holmes fans were upset with SPS when it came out. As to wheter it matters that they got upset, it depends on who you ask.

People take their fantasy worlds seriously. As crazy as it sounds, it is true.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

They shouldn't.

 

[Trekwatcher]

They shouldn't.

That is up for debate, but the truth is that they do. Dune, The Lord of the Rings, Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, just to name a few, have very passionate fans who take it very seriously.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's not a fair comparison.

If you're talking about remaking a story about an undead noble who goes around seducing women then killing them, I don't think anyone would complain.

If instead they turn Vlad the Impaler into a happy, peaceful flower child I think people would have a problem.

That's sort of what happend here.

Nope. Not even close, sorry.

 

[Greg Cox]

Okay, what about Sherlock Holmes? Holmes fans practically invented the word "canon" as Trekkies like to use it. Did the SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION violate the canon as established by Conan Doyle? Sure. Does it matter? No.

Great stories and characters can support multiple interpretations.

Not fair. You are changing your argument. Dracula and Holmes are very different, and I *guarantee* you that many Holmes fans were upset with SPS when it came out.

They were missing out then. That's a great book.

(The sequels, not so much.)

But, okay, back to Dracula. There have been countless Dracula series, in books, movies, comics, etc. But nobody gets bent out of shape if a new series contradicts the previous one.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

That is up for debate, but the truth is that they do. Dune, The Lord of the Rings, Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, just to name a few, have very passionate fans who take it very seriously.

Agreed, it is somewhat up for debate, though it depends on your definition of "passionate". To me, "passionate" does not equal "stubborn", more "fascinated" and "live and let live".

But, to be honest, fans who are "passionate" in your definition are very hard to please. Too hard to please. Most of them will find fault in almost anything. So please explain to me, why a studio should want to?

oldTrek had a bit of a negative circle going there. They've payed so much attention to detail and continuity, that it bound their hands and feet so tight they began to bleed whenever someone had a fascinating new idea. Because those fans have come to accept that everything should fit like a piece of a puzzle. I don't agree.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Okay, what about Sherlock Holmes? Holmes fans practically invented the word "canon" as Trekkies like to use it. Did the SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION violate the canon as established by Conan Doyle? Sure. Does it matter? No.

Great stories and characters can support multiple interpretations.

To be fair, Dracula, Holmes, 007, Tarzan etc all originated in print, which means the first screen version was already a change/adaptation. Trek started as a TV show, with the cast an integral part of that original experience, so there is a bit more of a tying of those original screen personae to the characters as written than there would be with Dracula et al.

Having said that, I'm perfectly happy with both the movie and the new cast.

 

[Dar70]

> they decided to keep the Spock baggage from the
> previous canon. Thereby including all the old baggage
> but its just in a closet on the other side of the timeline
> and confuse the hell out of everyone.

You don't speak for everyone. If you're confused, then you're confused, but don't you presume to speak for me.

Some of the saddest posts on this board are from a few sci-fi obsessives who presume that, due to their fixation on a fictional universe, they speak for everyone when offering their opinion of it.

> "Who is JJ Abrams," they would say, "to rewrite the
> words of Bram Stoker!"

Yes, but 'they' would simply be people who would be predisposed to dislike any film adaptation of "Dracula" in the first place, and it's always a non-starter to discuss pleasing people who've decided in advance not to be pleased.

- Ibrahim Ng

No ones speaking for you. BUT from the discussions going on here there was no clear concise explanation of the timeline they are in only that it is different. I gave a general assumption based on all the theories going on here in this forum. I understand all the mulitple theories. The problem is we really dont know which one.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Okay, what about Sherlock Holmes? Holmes fans practically invented the word "canon" as Trekkies like to use it. Did the SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION violate the canon as established by Conan Doyle? Sure. Does it matter? No.

Great stories and characters can support multiple interpretations.

Fo'sho.